SAEC Making Tonearms Again!

@lewm What can I say, I’m an SME fanboy. But I won’t apologize. They make incredibly competent products.

Since 2000, I probably listened to, set up, had access to, or owned close to 100 turntables. Most recently I’ve owned the brand new Technics SL1200G. I don’t have anything against direct drive, but very often the belt driven turntables are better.

If I had to pick my favorite direct drive, it would be either the Goldmund Studio, or Studietto.

Dear @chakster : You are a losted/lost case and explain why and why I several times told you that you have a lot to learn because in many critical audio analog and audiophile subjects you are a roockie but as you are a roockie on those subjects you only insist and till today even with facts/evidence you just did not learn.

In the other side, a few weeks ago when for the 10th or 100th time we were discusiing why Stevenson A alignment is a stupid one to use it and I posted to forgot that kind of alignment that only gives way higher distortions and you were emphatic and said that you mainly listen to 7" size recordings and that’s why you need it Stevenson. Down there I proved to you that even with 7" recordings Stevenson has higher distortions than either Löfgren alignments.

Because you were emphatic on what you mainly listen ( 7" size recordings. ) and as always trying to help I took my time to give the " best " alignment for it with the lower distortion levels and you posted here that " mainly listen to LPs ". ! ? ? ? ? !!!!!

Obviously that I’m to stupid to try help ( that's always my attitude behind each single word in my posts to any gentleman here and elsewhere. ) to untrusty and ignorant gentlemans like you. Period.

Do the best you do that's sale audio items because that's what you really are a seller and please don't push to hard because I can put a warning direct to agon for they " talk " with you about.

I never answer to any stupid people in the forums. Till today I have you as an ignorant roockie and near that border.

R.

Depends on which tonearm @rauliruegas
I have 4 tonearms, actually 3 are connected right now.
No problem with LPs i can listen with Baerwald on Reed 3p "12
My record collection is 50% 45s and 50% LPs

My Sony PUA-7 has its own alignment and its own SONY protractor.

Maybe i will experiment with Luxman TA-1 tonearm with high compliance cartridge for 7’inch only.

At the moment my new FR-64fx with FR-7f is on the "warm-up" in my system with its original alignment, i just replaced tube gear to solid state and everything changed, so i need time to get used to this sound, before i will make any changes!

I know your opinion that Stevenson is "stupid" and all japanese tonearm manufacturers are "stupid" too, but i want to know WHY did they used what they used! And i think we need more information, more opinions.

And yes, i want to learn things and i have time to learn things in this hobby, i am 41

Invictus, Thank you for your civil response to my perhaps intemperate questions.  Funnily enough, I would rank those Goldmund turntables as among the worst, most over-rated DD turntables I have ever heard, starting with their very badly implemented suspension systems.  And their drive systems don't compete for engineering sophistication with the best Denon and Technics vintage DDs, in my opinion.  I have yet to hear the 1200G, but the 1200G and the 10R both incorporate coreless motors. I have found that I tend to prefer DDs driven by a coreless motor, too. Among vintage DDs, this includes the Kenwood L07D and the Victor TT101. (There are more, Including the Yamaha 2000GT, but I haven't heard them.)  Oddly enough, just based on what I know about SME turntables, I imagine that the SME design philosophy results in a turntable that has many of the qualities I like about DD turntables.  If you found that you prefer the SME to the 1200G, that is a good head to head comparison, except, assuming you own one of the better SMEs, the cost is 2-3X that of the 1200G.

Fremer, who wrote the paragraph you or someone else cited critiquing the servo system used in DD turntables, more recently went on to write a glowing review of the SP10R, calling it one of the best turntables he has ever heard and also showing graphically that it was the most speed stable turntable he has ever measured.  Somehow, he forgot to complain about the servo mechanism in that review.  (Or, without checking the review, perhaps the spiel about the servo system was built into the SP10R review.) But negative reference to the servo system in DD turntables is a common device used by those who want to sell belt-drive or who have a pre-determined bias of some kind.  DD turntables CAN have a coloration, which I think is much more due to either EMI emanating from the motor or to motor cogging. (Hence perhaps the reason that coreless motors seem to impart a more "continuous" and musical sound.)  I think it's important to shield the cartridge from EMI, and the shielding effect may be the major reason why a lot of people swear by copper platter mats, etc. 

And finally, nearly all modern belt-drive turntables are nowadays using a drive system that incorporates a feedback system to maintain speed stability.  Witness the recent popularity of the Phoenix Engineering products in the US.  How ironic is that?  If the belt is at all compliant, this could in theory play havoc with speed stability, because if the drive system "sees" that the platter is slow (for example), it will signal a correction.  The resulting torque bump from the motor will partly be used up in stretching the belt before the platter speed can respond. And etc. This back and forth is potentially worse than DD, because of belt compliance, if indeed there is any problem at all with DD in this regard.

@rauliruegas 

Sp-10s were designed for broadcasting: they needed fast star up and fast stop too, speed stability, etc. but they did not needs a special plinth to avoid resonances/vibrations as we need in a home system.

I wonder about your own learning curve, Raul
Several years ago you'be been fighting with a'gon members regarding your idea that "naked fashion" (no plinth at all) SP-10mkII is better than any plinth. Do you remember? 

You goal was to add AT-616 pneumatic insulators under the Sp-10mkII, just like i did last month on this photo of SAEC mat (if anyone would like to see what i'm talking about). 

Now you're talking about "a special plinth to avoid resonances/vibrations", could you explain? The AT-616 pneumatic insulators is there to avoid vibrations and to level turntable in its "naked fashion" style. 

In many cases on this forum you're controversial to yourself, your own statements (from 5 year ago for example) regarding cartridges, tonearms, plinth etc is often completely different to your current statements. Which make me think that all your current statements about vintage analog equipmentn will mean nothing in the next 5 years.